Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

The hon. Gentleman, who is a close geographical neighbour of mine, is absolutely wrong, because whether this provision is added to the Bill would make no difference to the procedure used when the foot and mouth epidemic broke out, when provisions had to be brought before the House and discussed. That is the safeguard situation. This provision does not remove the capacity of the Government or Parliament to change dates in an emergency—such as the invasion of Kent by some unforeseen enemy. One can see that changes might have to be made in extremis, but the provision is not about such situations; nor, when Ministers introduced the provision, did they suggest that it had anything to do with such situations. As well as giving two reasons for concern, the Electoral Commission pointed out that the provision is consistent with existing legislation. I was not aware of the reference it gives, but it says:"““A one year notice period would also be consistent with existing legislation. Section 37(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 provides for the ordinary date of local elections to be changed as long as it is done before 1st February the year before (i.e. slightly more than a year) the original date of the election.””" In one sense, this is a probing amendment, but we have been put up to it by the Electoral Commission, which has given good reasons why it should be taken more seriously than just an attempt to squeeze a concession out of the Government. The commission has made a strong case, and all the Opposition parties share the concerns about it. The present Government are full of integrity and good intentions—they never make a mistake or a cheap political judgment—so, obviously, I exonerate them from the wild accusation by the commission that they might be involved in such activity. However, the commission also mentions future Governments, and by the time we reach June 2009, Labour might be in opposition and might face a different, more oppressive Government. In Committee, the Minister was quizzed on the point of introducing the provision. She replied:"““We seek to give the Secretary of State the power to combine such elections without the need for primary legislation by making an order to combine elections that fall due at around the same time.””––[Official Report, Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Public Bill Committee, 8 March 2007; c. 591-2.]" Ministers would still have that opportunity if the amendment were accepted. It is just that they would have to think of it a bit earlier and not leave it to be informed by some tactical political consideration nearer the date. We would argue that the concept of making that change and imposing a limit is what the Government originally set out to do. It is sensible to introduce the safeguard that the Electoral Commission believes should be introduced, and the idea of a one-year moratorium on date changes fits existing legislative provision, in the 1983 Act. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response. If they do not feel able to accede to our proposal at this point, I hope that they will give a clear indication that they will engage in discussion with the commission and, if necessary, table an appropriate amendment later. For a second champagne moment, the Minister could say that she has heard the argument, listened to what the commission has had to say and is delighted to accept our amendment.